What is it with some of these IDiots and their mind-numbingly long posts? VJ Torley has written yet another response to whomever Libby Anne is: Libby Anne (part 3): A reply to her article, “How I lost faith in the pro-life movement”. It is way TLDR; it took me several minutes just to scroll-wheel my way to the bottom, during which time I was able to gather that its theme is (anti) abortion.You can follow this UD link if you want, but from what I could gather it is all summed up in this concluding summary:

Quote

In this post, I have carefully examined the empirical arguments made by Libby Anne to buttress her pro-choice position, and I have found them wanting.

I think you could have saved everybody, including yourself, VJ, a lot of time by skipping straight to that.

--------------To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

I did a word count on that. 22,000 plus parts 1 and 2, which I recall were 15,000 and 18,000. Together, that is longer than some acclaimed works of Hemingway, Vonnegut or Bradbury (not counting the superabundant pictures).

I suppose they have not liked the situation where in recent weeks we have had some useful and reasonably civil exchanges here at UD under living room rules, giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.

This couldn't possibly be due to your extensively discussing Lizzie's blog because your lot had run out of topics that could maintain some scientific pretense and were reduced to discussions about "How To Go To Heaven"?

No, perish the thought!

Indeed. The threads on Lizzie's blog are keeping UD off of life support. That's not a good thing.

My personal view is that if the UD denizens aren't willing to come out of their padded echo chamber then the reality based community shouldn't engage them seriously. We shouldn't be sanctioning, even implicitly, the gross lack of respect for the free exchange of ideas exemplified by the censors at UD.

Let them fester in their own excrement.

i for one am fucking ecstatic that this thread has become so meta that we don't even have to actually read UD to talk about how legitimately stupid it is

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

What is it with some of these IDiots and their mind-numbingly long posts? VJ Torley has written yet another response to whomever Libby Anne is: Libby Anne (part 3): A reply to her article, “How I lost faith in the pro-life movement”. It is way TLDR; it took me several minutes just to scroll-wheel my way to the bottom, during which time I was able to gather that its theme is (anti) abortion.You can follow this UD link if you want, but from what I could gather it is all summed up in this concluding summary:

Quote

In this post, I have carefully examined the empirical arguments made by Libby Anne to buttress her pro-choice position, and I have found them wanting.

I think you could have saved everybody, including yourself, VJ, a lot of time by skipping straight to that.

22,000 words + pictures (54 pages of A4 if I had printed it) - and this is only one part in three.

According to Wikipedia The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America specifies word lengths for each category of its Nebula award categories.

Novel over 40,000 wordsNovella 17,500 to 40,000 wordsNovelette 7,500 to 17,500 wordsShort story under 7,500 words

What is it with some of these IDiots and their mind-numbingly long posts? VJ Torley has written yet another response to whomever Libby Anne is: Libby Anne (part 3): A reply to her article, “How I lost faith in the pro-life movement”. It is way TLDR; it took me several minutes just to scroll-wheel my way to the bottom, during which time I was able to gather that its theme is (anti) abortion.You can follow this UD link if you want, but from what I could gather it is all summed up in this concluding summary:

Quote

In this post, I have carefully examined the empirical arguments made by Libby Anne to buttress her pro-choice position, and I have found them wanting.

I think you could have saved everybody, including yourself, VJ, a lot of time by skipping straight to that.

And isn't UD supposed to be a place to promote and discuss "ID"? What the hell does pro-choice/abortion/anti-abortion have to do with "ID"?

To be more accurate and honest the website label "www.uncommondescent.com" should be changed to 'www.the-sanctimonious-rantings-of-a-handful-of-verbose-religious-lunatics.com'.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

I did a word count on that. 22,000 plus parts 1 and 2, which I recall were 15,000 and 18,000. Together, that is longer than some acclaimed works of Hemingway, Vonnegut or Bradbury (not counting the superabundant pictures).

Great literature this is not.

Who the fuck is Libby Anne?

Is VJ Torley and anyone reading him unemployed?

Hey now, you're speaking of the Valedictorian of the University of Woolamaroo Philosophy class. He graduated magna cum Bruce. His career is going very well and he's expected to be in charge of the sheep dip before he's 40.

i for one am fucking ecstatic that this thread has become so meta that we don't even have to actually read UD to talk about how legitimately stupid it is

I don't think there are words in English for how useless UD has become.

When I started the UD thread, UD had meaning. It was depraved, and clueless, and angry, and lunatic. But it had a certain essence, a vitality.

sorta like a rabid badger. But the badger died years ago. Now we're just kinda kicking the bones around. More like, we're kicking around the droppings of the animal that ate the animal that ate the animal that ate the badger's corpse.

I just read that blog post. Her argument is pretty straightforward: If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, the best way to do so is to ensure that women have access to contraception. She supports this with referenced studies that appear legitimate.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to control women and punish them for being sexually active, you would ensure that women have no access to birth control and would make abortion illegal (which does not, as she points out, reduce the rate at all).

Guess which goal most people in the "pro-life" camp actually have?

Did vjtorley address her points? I'm not giving any traffic to UD and I couldn't get through one of his screeds even if I were.

Robert ByersJune 20, 2012 at 12:33 amWhy would God lie about this? [a literal adam and eve -steve]Is it settled the bible is not the word of God?Who settled this?The same crowd who settled evolution is true?Why in the world would it be impossible for a original couple?In fact if one keeps going bach kids to parents it must be that there was a original two parents?How else?

I just read that blog post. Her argument is pretty straightforward: If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, the best way to do so is to ensure that women have access to contraception. She supports this with referenced studies that appear legitimate.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to control women and punish them for being sexually active, you would ensure that women have no access to birth control and would make abortion illegal (which does not, as she points out, reduce the rate at all).

Guess which goal most people in the "pro-life" camp actually have?

Did vjtorley address her points? I'm not giving any traffic to UD and I couldn't get through one of his screeds even if I were.

torley replied, but life's too short to read all 857 pages of his reply.

Just came from UD. nothing to post, it's too depressing over there. BA77 babbling a bunch of stuff about jesus. something about casey luskin and others having a new meeting in which they call ID science. Not a meeting, of course, to do any science, just yet another meeting to say that their pseudomathematical BS is science. They're all hat, no cattle. All press conference, no chilly neutrons.

Well, let's check PCID. That should show us that ID is a powerful new paradigm being used by its advocates to generate new scientific findings, as opposed to, say, being a propaganda effort to confuse the matter of creationism in education which was abandoned as soon as the legal jig was up:

Jeremiah 1:5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;__Dr. Gloria Polo: Warning About AbortionDr. Gloria Polo, a wealthy dentist from Columbia, South America, had a near death experience in which she was shown the ways in which she had sinned during her life. (She states about her experience),“In the book of life I saw how our soul is formed the moment the sperm and the egg touch. A beautiful spark is formed, a light beaming from the sun of God the father. As soon as the womb of a mother is impregnated, it lights up with the brightness of that soul. When there is an abortion, that soul screams and moans in pain even if it has no eyes or flesh.”

I was kinda curious how sincerely torley believes what he's saying, so I created a fiendishly good disguise Username that they'll never figure out is me (notstevestory) and posted this question:

Quote

Moreover, even in the case where the unborn child threatens its mother’s health, there is an important difference between the ac of expelling the child from her body (and thereby killing it) and the act of shooting an innocent zombie or malevolent individual who is endangering her health. In the former case, the mother wills to kill the unborn child by cutting it off from its normal means of life support; whereas in the latter, the mother wills to kill the attacker by cutting him down before he can reach her. I think that’s a morally relevant difference. So I would say that the fact that an unborn child is harming its mother’s health is not a sufficient ground to justify aborting it.

Ever? Say the fetus is at two months, and developing normally, but causing Hypothetical Disease X, which has no known cure and is 100% lethal to the mother in 2 weeks if an abortion is not performed. Abort, or not?

--but my comment is in moderation so I thought I'd preserve it here. Just in case it somehow...accidentally...disappears.

Isn't UD supposed to be about Intelligent Design? I'm astonished that they have time for discussions of religion with all the cutting edge, ground breaking new ID science being published so frequently.

Darwinian evolution is dependent on the presence of recorded information in order to function. The presence of recorded information requires very specific material conditions in order to exist. Darwinian evolution cannot be the cause of those specific material conditions. To say that it can, is to say that a thing that does not yet exist can cause something to happen.

What RB actually said:

Quote

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that only design, agency, intelligence etc. can give rise to such systems.

...

Quote

Therefore, it does not follow from semiotic theory that unguided processes cannot give rise to such systems.

I don't think it would be ethical of me to suggest that you open up page 1 of Uncommon Descent thread 1 and begin the journey. That first thread alone is 30,000 comments. You could lose too much of your life there. But it would probably be entertaining.

I don't think it would be ethical of me to suggest that you open up page 1 of Uncommon Descent thread 1 and begin the journey. That first thread alone is 30,000 comments. You could lose too much of your life there. But it would probably be entertaining.

Actually, sometimes I open one of those old threads at random and read some pages; it's hilarious.